If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

View Poll Results: Does Mitt's history as a prankster mean he's a bad president-to-be?

Hmmmmmmm...I like the way you think. Onwards and upward at it were. Give me this lifetime to think about it. I have to tell you though, I don't work cheap. Plus, how would you feel taking direction from me?

I also kind of love how since Romney curbstomped the Big O, this time all the Democrat people are playing down whether the debate means shit. If Romney had looked like his usual incompetent cotton-headed-ninny-muggins out there, you can bet your ass it'd be "har har, rich heartless Mr Burns douche can't relate to anyone."

And yeah, Obama's still ahead in the swingstate polls, but if you want to be fair, just about all the networks and cable groups all surveyed their own groups of undecideds, and all had pretty shocking amounts of people saying they were somewhat swayed toward the Mittbot 9000 over what they had been previously.

That's...surprising, and you've gotta be fair and wonder if the President's a little more worried than he was, say, Monday. I still think he'll win, but if the GOP can project *that* type of engaged, enthusiastic demeanor from here on out, it's going to be hard for the current Democrat attack ads to work.

What concerns me a little is that this was pretty much the last of the big domestic issue stuff. The next debate's going to be foreign policy, and with all the shit from the past month or so, Romney has major ammunition. Wouldn't surprise me if the next one's at least more a tie than a Barack-delivering-a-retaliatory-asskicking.

And Mitt wanted to kill Big Bird!
The single most important thing on Earth, of course. But as we know, Obama enjoys spending time hanging with Hu Jintao. So it makes sense that he borrows from China to pay for Big Bird.
Should people chill out, and realize that ordinary people also contribute to PBS? Yes they should. The gov. cannot fund everything.

Educational programming for kids is more important than you may think. I watched and learned from Sesame Street every day as a toddler, and when I reached Kindergarten, I was the only kid in my class who was already able to read a book all the way through. The only word I didn't know how to pronounce was "gym".

And yes, PBS gets most of their money from the public. So do you *really* think the federal subsidies they get are anything significant? Do you *really* think that negligible amount of money will put even the tiniest dent in the deficit? Come on, now, you're arguing against yourself.

Originally Posted by MOTO13

You will never achieve 100% employment and using that as an argument is stupid. People naturally drop in and out of the job market and then there are those certain % of people who simply cannot or will not work for various reasons. Usually max employment is seen when unemployment is between 3-4%.

Not that I support what the Soviet Union did or stood for, but in the Soviet Union, there was 100% employment. Everyone had a job, whether they liked it or not. So yeah, you're wrong again.

One way they are going raise revenue is through new taxes placed on health care coming 1/1/13. Also, the feds just hired or will be hiring 1,000 additional fte auditors to enforce this disaster called Obamcare. And by enforce, I mean fine and fuck with American businesses.

Well damn, so businesses won't be able to treat their employees so shitty without paying fines? OH THE HUMANITY.

Originally Posted by Eskimo

And yeah, Obama's still ahead in the swingstate polls, but if you want to be fair, just about all the networks and cable groups all surveyed their own groups of undecideds, and all had pretty shocking amounts of people saying they were somewhat swayed toward the Mittbot 9000 over what they had been previously.

Check the gallup polls. Gallup is unbiased and surveys thousands of people every single day, and hasn't been wrong about a presidential election in what, 30 years?

What concerns me a little is that this was pretty much the last of the big domestic issue stuff. The next debate's going to be foreign policy, and with all the shit from the past month or so, Romney has major ammunition. Wouldn't surprise me if the next one's at least more a tie than a Barack-delivering-a-retaliatory-asskicking.

Whoa, whoa... wait a minute. I don't like Obama's foreign policy, but you'd have to be blind and deaf to not see that Romney's foreign policy is pretty non-existent. His platform is based entirely on his domestic policy... and he makes an ass of himself every time foreign policy comes up.

...Not that I support what the Soviet Union did or stood for, but in the Soviet Union, there was 100% employment. Everyone had a job, whether they liked it or not. So yeah, you're wrong again.
Well damn, so businesses won't be able to treat their employees so shitty without paying fines? OH THE HUMANITY.

Are simply slow or just mildly retarded? Employment and quality of life in the USSR was awsome....lol. Obviously, based on your ever so astute analysis, we should simply bring back slavery. 100% employment.

You have never run a business...that is painfully obvious. Here's a thought...go invest $2-3 million starting a good business and hire all the employees you want. Make a profit, grow the business and then get back to the rest of the planet with the results on your business utopia.

Are simply slow or just mildly retarded? Employment and quality of life in the USSR was awsome....lol. Obviously, based on your ever so astute analysis, we should simply bring back slavery. 100% employment.

The question, in fact, should be are you simply slow or mildly retarded? I plainly stated that I don't support the USSR at all, and wouldn't want their system run anywhere in the world. I was only proving you wrong in this interaction:

Originally Posted by llamas

But Republicans don't want 100% employment in the US, because that would be too socialist :-x

Originally Posted by moto

You will never achieve 100% employment and using that as an argument is stupid. People naturally drop in and out of the job market and then there are those certain % of people who simply cannot or will not work for various reasons. Usually max employment is seen when unemployment is between 3-4%.

Originally Posted by llamas

Not that I support what the Soviet Union did or stood for, but in the Soviet Union, there was 100% employment. Everyone had a job, whether they liked it or not. So yeah, you're wrong again.

Are you that thick that you think I said the quality of life in the USSR was something people want? I only said that 100% employment is possible, despite your idiotic statement that it's not.

You have never run a business...that is painfully obvious. Here's a thought...go invest $2-3 million starting a good business and hire all the employees you want. Make a profit, grow the business and then get back to the rest of the planet with the results on your business utopia.

How profitable is your business? And don't worry, I'm in the process of opening an SP. I'm currently a freelance worker who does half of my work for myself, and in the near future, I will have a few employees (already have a few people who are interested in working for me, but I obviously can't hire them until I have my SP). Not planning on investing anywhere near that much money because there's no need for it; not planning on hiring more than 3 people because there's no need for it. I've been building my clientele gradually and doing all the work with them myself.

The question, in fact, should be are you simply slow or mildly retarded? I plainly stated that I don't support the USSR at all, and wouldn't want their system run anywhere in the world. I was only proving you wrong in this interaction:

[/COLOR]
Are you that thick that you think I said the quality of life in the USSR was something people want? I only said that 100% employment is possible, despite your idiotic statement that it's not.

How profitable is your business? And don't worry, I'm in the process of opening an SP. I'm currently a freelance worker who does half of my work for myself, and in the near future, I will have a few employees (already have a few people who are interested in working for me, but I obviously can't hire them until I have my SP). Not planning on investing anywhere near that much money because there's no need for it; not planning on hiring more than 3 people because there's no need for it. I've been building my clientele gradually and doing all the work with them myself.

Make sure when you hire you employees you offer...401k, fully paid health care insurance, vision, dental, paid personal time off, paid sick leave, paid vacation and paid federal holidays. Cause if you don't, you are suddenly one of the shitty, fuckball businesses that you so lovingly referred to. Oh yeah, when you possibly have to fire someone for cause, let me know how your state UI rate works out for you. Also, when they can't make it to work for whatever reason, make sure you are understanding. Cause there are employees out there that use employers just long enough to get unemployment. Hire minorities and undocumented's too. Can't leave anyone out on the good fortune that is your business. Shall I begin to get into the cost of training employees too?

I hate to be honest here, but this nation has enough autistic, ADD, or drug-addicted people to make sure that there will never be 100% employment.
And if there was no such thing as unemployment, then politics would lose all its meaning. Neither party wants that.